R v. Dunphy - [2007] QCA 421

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dunphy [2007] QCA 421

PARTIES:

R
v
DUNPHY, Peter Allan-Reid
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 80 of 2007
SC No 872 of 2006
SC No 210 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

23 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Muir JJA, McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, one of stealing, two of stalking, in one case with violence, one of wilful destruction and one count of receiving stolen property with circumstances of aggravation – where applicant sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for trafficking offences, six months for stalking and wilful destruction and three months for other offences, all to be served concurrently – where parole eligibility date set at 16 months from date of sentence – where sentenced under s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

R v Ikin[2007] QCA 224; CA No 86 of 2007, 17 July 2007, considered
R v Coleman[2006] QCA 442; CA No 213 of 2006,
3 November 2006, discussed
R v Oldfield[2004] QCA 435; CA No 310 of 2004,
16 November 2004,considered
R v McMahon[2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003,
27 August 2003, considered
R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, considered
R v Taylor[2006] QCA 459; CA No 162 of 2006,
10 November 2006, considered
R v Barton[2006] QCA 367; CA No 25 of 2006,
22 September 2006 considered

COUNSEL:

T Entriken for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Reardon & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice McMurdo to deliver his reasons first.

McMURDO J: on 22 March 2007, the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, one of stealing, two of stalking, in one case with violence, one of wilful destruction and one count of receiving stolen property with circumstances of aggravation. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the trafficking offences, six months for the stalking and wilful destruction and three months for the other offences, all to be served concurrently. A parole eligibility date was set at 16 months from the date of the sentence, being 21 July 2008.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed for trafficking and the order for the parole eligibility date. The sole ground is that the result is manifestly excessive. He says that the result should have been concurrent terms of four and a half years for the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v. Dunphy

Details

AGLC: R v Dunphy [2007] QCA 421
Case: [2007] QCA 421
Decision Date: 23 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. Dunphy involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by the court. The applicant had pleaded guilty to various charges, including trafficking in dangerous drugs, stealing, stalking, wilful destruction, and receiving stolen property with aggravating circumstances. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for the trafficking offences, six months for stalking and wilful destruction, and three months for the other offences, with all sentences to run concurrently. The parole eligibility date was set at 16 months from the date of the sentence. The applicant contested the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with reviewing the sentence and determining whether it was indeed disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature and gravity of the offences, the applicant’s criminal history, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The applicant's legal team argued that the sentence was disproportionately harsh given the concurrent nature of the sentences and the parole eligibility date. Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the crimes.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case. It noted the seriousness of the offences, particularly the trafficking in dangerous drugs and the stalking with violence. The court also considered the need to deter such criminal activities and to protect the community. After a thorough review of the evidence and the applicable legal standards, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes and took into account the need for both punishment and deterrence. Accordingly, the application to reduce the sentence was refused.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application to reduce the sentence. The applicant’s appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in effect. The court’s decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, where the gravity of the offences and the need for community protection are given due consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Dunphy [2007] QCA 421
PARTIES:	R v DUNPHY, Peter Allan-Reid (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 80 of 2007 SC No 872 of 2006 SC No 210 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	23 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 November 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Muir JJA, McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, one of stealing, two of stalking, in one case with violence, one of wilful destruction and one count of receiving stolen property with circumstances of aggravation – where applicant sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for trafficking offences, six months for stalking and wilful destruction and three months for other offences, all to be served concurrently – where parole eligibility date set at 16 months from date of sentence – where sentenced under s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 – whether sentence manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A R v Ikin[2007] QCA 224; CA No 86 of 2007, 17 July 2007, considered R v Coleman[2006] QCA 442; CA No 213 of 2006, 3 November 2006, discussed R v Oldfield[2004] QCA 435; CA No 310 of 2004, 16 November 2004,considered R v McMahon[2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, considered R v Taylor[2006] QCA 459; CA No 162 of 2006, 10 November 2006, considered R v Barton[2006] QCA 367; CA No 25 of 2006, 22 September 2006 considered
COUNSEL:	T Entriken for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Reardon & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent